Both the better and worse sides of human nature prevail in every objective
condition you can name. The objective conditions actually have the least effect
on how people behave. Some people who have every good thing imaginable and in
excess are selfish pricks who wouldn’t throw a life preserver to a drowning
man, even if it cost them nothing, whereas, although I know you scoff at this,
others establish scholarships, foundations, support scientific research, open
settlement schools, that’s not so common anymore, establish libraries, and
while none of these things significantly diminishes their lives of privilege,
it’s still preferable to keeping it all for themselves and ripping off those
less wealthy than they are. . Some people in the face of unspeakable
deprivation and horror will hoard everything they can get their hands on, and
others will share whatever little they they have with others around them.
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just believing or not believing that the better sides of human nature will or
will not prevail does nothing to make it prevail or not prevail. If you
really want those better sides to prevail it will be necessary to work to
change the objective conditions under which they operate. Recently I came up
with an example that I kind of like. That is what do you do if you want a
stiff alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia. I am neither saying that the
consumption of alcohol is good or bad. I am simply saying that the objective
conditions in Saudi Arabia are such that it would be extremely hard to get
drunk no matter how much you wanted to. If you have lived there all your life
it is even likely that you will not want to get drunk or even think about
getting drunk. The trouble with Saudi Arabia is that the sides of human
nature that that society encourages and discourages are not the sides that I
think should be encouraged and discouraged. The point remains, though, that
if you don't want certain behavior to take place you have to construct the
objective conditions such that it cannot take place and if you want other
behaviors to take place you have to construct the objective conditions such
that they will be inevitable.
On 7/31/2016 10:11 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
As I said to Dick, cynic that I am, I can’t quite bring myself to really
believe that the better sides of human nature won’t prevail, experience
notwithstanding. There are many, many examples in which it does, despite
many people’s tendencies to rip even those to shreds because they are not
100% perfect.
And now, I’m going to do a little of that: you speak of the ethical humanist
movement, but look at how shabbily the New York chapter treated you and your
husband. Where were all their admirable principles of equality and the
positive sides of human nature then?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course, humann nature is what it is. We have the potential for altruism
and cooperation, and we have the potential for aggression and domination. If
we assume that every effort toward making our political and economic system
will end in failure because the negative aspects of human nature will win
out, then really, there's no point in trying anything that might improve
life for all of us. One of the things that I really like about the Ethical
Culture, or Ethical Humanist movement, is its emphasis on working toward the
kind of society that will encourage the positive aspects of human nature.
Miriam
